VitalOne

Its often said in Eastern philosophy that there is no individual. While I agree that there is no "I" and no "doer" since nature is the only doer, there still has to be some type of individuality to some extent. For instance, say that I or someone else achieves supreme enlightenment, they are still different from us. They still are separate, still have seperate thoughts, and experience no suffering, while the rest of us do experience suffering. This seperation is the individual.

How can there be no individual? It doesn't make any sense...

Tears In The Rain

They mean the distinction between self and other is an arbitrary line. Just like the distinction between man and nature. Man is part of nature. You are part of the universe. Division and separation are conceptual constructs, not truth about reality.

badger3k

Indeed. It also has to do with the idea that "I" am separate from everything, and unique. There is a concept in Eastern philosophy where if, for example, you think of a chair, that chair is dependant on the wood and the artisan who crafted it, the rain and mositure that fed the tree, the parents and friends, and all the experiences that made the artisan the individual that they were at the moment of crafting, and all the other factors. It forms a great chain, or Dependant Origination (or Arising). Also consider that "I" can only exist with air to breath, food and water to sustain me, and a million other things, and we can see that "I" am part of this totality. There is no "I" that exists independant of all these things.

Now, that is not what most Westerners (and perhaps many Easterners too, I am not sure how widespread the belief is) think of when they think of "I" or "self", and at a practical level, there is an "I". If there weren't, we could not exist as human beings in any way we are familiar with. But if you can understand that there is no unique "you", that all people and things are related and part of everything, then there is no ultimate "self". It's all in the way you look at things.

premjan

The individuality of the individual is also in flux, hence you are not the same you were some years ago, though there are common threads.

perfectbite

This is NOT Dependent origination. This is causality.

Dependent Origination is something else entirely.

Dependent Origination is: 'It is all you'.

You personally and individually bring into being the arising of the causality that surrounds you and is you and that is why Buddhism insists you pay attention to it and treat it well with as much wisdom and compassion as you can muster.

Buddhism is Mind Only.

Even if the Buddhist Tathagatas lived for a hundred million years they could not understand it.

wordy

VitalOne, I guess buddhists use a kind of trap to lure in potential converts. From a certain perspective buddhists are even more fundie than even the most fundie christian fundie.

what makes buddhism so bad?

"Buddhism is Mind Only. "

That is what makes it so bad. They deny the material as the base of our existence. They cheat on reality.

Styrofoamdeity

A stark and interesting perspective. Personally I cannot see that Buddhism is "bad". I'm not sure how you have come to that conclusion, given that it appears to be doing no harm and a great deal of benefit. Since you are arguing from a materialistic perspective, I would be curious as to where you feel Buddhism is doing some tangible bad, especially relative to other doctrines. Perhaps on another thread, so as to avoid side-tracking this one.

Nevertheless, there is something Houdini-esque in some of the pleading that one or two of Buddhism's controversial components exist "only in the mind". This is not the thread for it, but my earlier thread on Hell in eastern religions had a few samples of this somewhat complicated philosophical stance.

premjan

Buddhism is mind only means that Buddhists may tend to ignore some material realities rather than act on them. The same problem occurs with Advaitists who refuse to see conflicts as real. Some sort of balance (e.g. the tug of duty as in the Gita or radical individualism and self-preservation) is required for balance.

badger3k

That is different from what I learned - I think. I'll need to look it up for my own benefit. I am not sure of the name, but I believe the better term for what I was describing is Interdependance (?).

abaddon

"The flag is moving," said one monk.
"The wind is moving, said another.
Huineng, passing by and over-hearing, added, "Not the wind, not the flag; mind is moving."*

Which is right? They all are, inasmuch as anyone can be "right" while using words. It's all a matter of perspective, and of the many possible perspectives none are "the literal truth."

Materialists think there's an objective world "out there," and it's mirrored inside our "brains" and we can make an accurate painting of that with words "in here." The representation is taken as reliable; and the most they want to say about other people's paintings (their description of their perspective) is "That's either literally true or it's literally false."

They're trying to step out of their minds, into a reality "out there," and then they forget the starting place -- the mind. They want a God's eye view of the world: objectivity.

If there are any Houdini tricks, that's it: pretending they know the God's eye view that is just True no matter who's looking. But your perspective is always from "in here." And now, if you can wrap your mind around that, then drop the "in here" and you'll understand Buddhism better.

There is no "in the mind." There is no "outside the mind." These are just concepts you were taught, and don't square with experienced reality.

This inside/outside game is at the heart of people feeling they're separated out from the rest of existence, and too often presuming their viewpoint is God's viewpoint, i.e. the literal objective truth from "out there."

Do I mean all this as literally true? Well, so long as we're talking, it's "literal" enough. And I'm not denying some things are true and others are not (I just don't know that anything we can say is "theory-independent"). Think about it though: How do you get "outside of your mind" and just know how reality is without presuming omniscience?

"It's all matter, you must believe or you're a fundie! (and I'm not!)" (<-- Does anyone see the irony of that?)

"It's all mind, if you don't know that then you're lost in illusion!" (How convenient).

Words, words...

-----------------------------
* Story is a paraphrase from Zen Flesh, Zen Bones; story #29 of "The Gateless Gate"